About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CSPAN2 18
CSPAN 16
MSNBCW 11
CNNW 5
CNBC 3
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LINKTV 1
LANGUAGE
English 83
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 83 (some duplicates have been removed)
an hour. [applause] >> now, our love whered president finish beloved president ronald reagan passed away almost ten years ago. but as many in this audience know, it seems nearly impossible to follow political news without hearing some reference to our 40th president. his memory, his name and, fortunately, his legacy seem to be ubiquitous as our country grapples with the challenges of our time. for many years, probably starting with the day after president reagan left office in 1989, there's been a famous question often asked when this is a particularly vexing problem facing our country. you've likely heard it before. we, the questioners often ask, well, what would reagan do? it's a good question to ask, because while times and technology and many faces have changed since president reagan was in office, some important fundamentals, those that speak to who we are as americans, have not. i believe that our guest today, governor jeb bush, understands this. and it's one of the reasons that after having left office just about six years ago he remains an extremely important national voice in th
insisted of about 125 people. it has grown over the years and became a favorite stop of ronald reagan, first as a candidate, and then as president. what is next? guest: there is a divide. the conservative movement has become much bigger than it was in the 1970's. the republican party. the straw poll results are popularity contests, to be sure, but they are also a window into , and the people, the 3000 that voted in the straw poll, many of them would have supported ron paul in the past. another one-quarter are more traditional conservatives. about one-tenth or more are social conservatives. that is their primary issue. the social conservatives were those who supported rick santorum, so you have these wings of the party, and on these issues, they all agree, but on some issues, especially the social ones, there is going to be conflicts, especially over the next few years, as the party tries to determine the next election. coveringmes hohmann, the cpac conference, up early. he has been getting a lot of attention in political circles, and his work is available on- line at politico dot com.
years of presidential press conferences. commemoratell another anniversary. president ronald reagan and his star wars defense initiative. "washington journal" continues. we are back in a moment. >> we could take pictures of the ans and seemri sc the whole thing. there is an enormous gap about how the surface of the brain function to be able to move my hand or to look at u.n. process the information or to lay down a memory. we do not know how that works. a lot of this will be technology development. a lot of it will be nano- technology. we want to look at london's of thousands of brain cells at the same time to understand -- look at hundreds of thousands of plant cells at the same time. we do not have a scientific plan about milestones. it is getting to be an exciting moment to put something together that we cannot have thought of. nih director on c-span plus some "q & a." ofyou have been out commission since 2006. the chairman has been on since 2009. will we expect some turnover with the commission? >> we all have staggered terms. the past years have flown by quickly. we will see. i
and not an election year liability? >> i work for ronald reagan. he compromised on everything. we had a democratic house with a huge majority. he had to. the real divided government can work. ronald reagan proved it could work. clinton proved it could work. those are guys who got huge legislation enacted. the reagan economic plan, immigration reform, social security reform -- here is the thing -- the president has got to lead. >> i would say this is not the season -- compromise is not in the air. but i think that the republicans in the house realize it is in their political interest to turn the heat down and not have a food fight every few weeks for the american public. what i think is in the air and is happening is people from the far left and the far right are starting to come together against institutions and the governing parties, and you will see more of that. you saw it last week with the drones. you will see it with the banks on wall street. businesses that are impacted by the federal government in terms of getting money. there is increasingly from the left and right a coming together again
but under president ronald reagan's watch it is the first thing people associate with the name. she was free elective accept of course for the relatives of those who died in beirut to it's hard to say how it will affect her legacy that it continues to be associated with her time in office. >> host: thank you for the book and for the interview. >> guest: thank you for having me. was a pleasure. >> got was "after words," booktv signature program which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with the material. "after words" airs every weekend on booktv 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" on line. good booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book tv series and topics list on the upper right side of the page. >>> jeffrey frank recounts the personal and working relationship between president dwight eisenhower and vice president richard nixon. mr. frank reports nixon constantly sought eisenhower's approval while eisenhower was unsure of mix and's
, failure. ronald reagan getting shot? failure. but think about how many times it does not happen because they are out there doing their jobs. this is really a message to us. entertainment, of course, it is a thriller. it is an action thriller, but the idea is this could happen, and this was laid out by people who know. is it is laid out this way, and you are sleeping on the job, and somebody can jump over the fence to get to the white house, that is a problem. tavis: i want to go back to angela and talk about the mountain top plate. the last time i saw you, you were on broadway. antoine is talking, i want to go to something. this may be a little bit politically incorrect, and if you do not want to talk about it, we do not have to talk about it. when i started reading the commentary about it, seeing none harvey weinstein -- seeing what harvey weinstein and others said about it, thinking it was going to be a blockbuster, in my house, i applaud you. i literally applauded you. applauding you for your work in this film. i was applauding you for doing this bill and doing it at such a high leve
to know what you believe. >> 1981 the tax rate. >> back to ronald reagan. >> top tax bracket was 50%. >> bill: nobody paid it because of the deductions and because of the tax shelters. >> believe me, there are still plenty of deductions. what the congressional black caucus is suggesting we go to the top tax bracket of the 1980s which i think was a pretty good period, you would have to admit, right? >> no. >> bill: i'm not going to admit to that because it's not relevant to our discussion. our discussion is does the federal government in a spree nation, and i emphasize free nation. has a right to take half your stuff. >> it worked for a lodge typing. >> do they have the right materially. >> the pcp, we give $5 million exemption when you you die. and then 65% on a death tax for people who make a lot of money. >> which, again, that was the rate back in the reagan years. what cpc is suggesting. >> bill: ronald reagan is the poster boy for the cpc. >> very high tax rates on the rich. >> bill: they were not paid because of all the tax dodges. raw socialist person? do you believe that soci
, and it's got to go. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan omelet me down a couple -- only let me down a couple of times in eight years. one of those was 1986, and i still had the dent after i heard on the news he had signed the amnesty act of 1986. but it was on the promise that there would be law enforcement, and we would restore the rule of law and a million people would be legalized. but then from there on forward the law would be enforced. well, i made sure i kept my records right waiting for the ins to show up at my office, but i never saw them. neither did thousands of businesses. but the enforcement in re began era was greater than the enforcement in any succeeding administration, and now the law is so eroded, i sat in a hearing just a couple of days ago and heard la raza say, well, we want to provide comprehensive immigration reform, and after we restore the rule of law -- la raza's telling us they're restoring the rule of law by waiving it? they've eroded the rule of law. and republicans seem to forget of the 11 or 12 million that they say are here -- and i think it's 20 -- t
movement to get elected and then feign shock when conservatives call them out for bad policy. ronald reagan cemented our values with his analogy -- that conservativism stands for free enterprise, strong national defense, and pro-family social policies. if you take one leg away from the stool, the stool crumbles. if we sell out our principles then the conservative movementthose in the establishment who claim they know how to win are simply living a lie. just look at the past two presidential campaigns. how did that work out for the establishment? only in 2010, when our conservative grassroots were fully mobilized, hand in hand with the tea party did we prevail. last month the battle lines were drawn when karl rove and company announced to "the new york times," of all places, they were forming the conservative victory project. the conservative victory project is nothing more than an attempt by the establishment to control the conservative movement. calling it the conservative victory project is like mitt romney saying he was a severe conservative. tol rove claims he wants win. why does he thi
could label the republicans or start with ronald reagan, cut taxes, big chunk toss the wealthy and then borrow the money to pay the bills. that's how you get debt, $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion. ronald reagan had this concept, starve the beast. he said the way we're going to kill social security and medicare and medicaid, we're at right now, is to make this government's debt so big that we can't afford them. >> guest: absolutely. one second, sir. ronald reagan was never in support of killing any of those programs. i mean, that is hyperbole. >> caller: he wanted to tax on the wealthy. let me finish, please, you get -- >> guest: he cut taxes across the board, sir, on everybody. >> caller: start to filibuster because i'm going to hammer you with a question. he lored the tax on the wealthy from 70 down to 40, and that amounted over the 30 years trillions and trillions of dollars being given away to the wealthy. do you think there's a correlation between us being trillions and trillions of dollars in the hole and the fact we gave trillions and trillions of dollars away to th
of the worst relationships i can remember, and i have covered presidents all the way back it ronald reagan. these leaders are not simpatico. they have leaned over backward, and that the republican nominees did too much. the white house comes to this visit clearly with that in mind. >> i want it bring in joe ruben. good to see you. >> great to be here. thanks, craig. >> joe, we heard from andrea, the perception of the president in israel. let's talk about the perception in the palestinian areas as well. talk to me a little bit about that. >> this is the right visit at the right time. the president going to israel right now is consistent with american president's past, about making a trip in the second term. and this is his first trip. and it sends a signal to the palestinians, to israelis, that america is engaged and is serious about seeing a resolution to their conflict. it doesn't mean that united states is going to put forward a plan and force the sides to the table but it is saying, clearly, and the president's been beaten up for this quite a bit, that u.s. is paying attention and tryin
. >> let me quote dick cheney, who said ronald reagan taught us that deficits do not matter. dick cheney was wrong. he was wrong then and now. of course deficits matter, but any one of you who supported the bush plans has no right to speak. i helped bill clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. why? because we had good economic times. in good economic times, you pay down the deficit, but reagan and bush did not, and in bad you have to stimulate in the near term, as thank god president obama is doing. we democrats will balance the budget once again. >> paul, which is more important to america's pursuit of happiness -- which is more dangerous, excuse me, than a 357 magnum -- >> in my home you would find 17 guns and no cans of soda pop. i have the right wing position on the giant drink soda thing. i do not like the idea, and i think bloomberg is a fine man, but i do not like government telling us what size to buy today. this one, i am with tucker and most of you. i have the right wing position on gun safety. i have the same position as ronald reagan, who was for a waiting period befo
supply to rescue the plummeting economy. but in late 1980, the situation changed. the election of ronald reagan gave volcker the opportunity to return to his long-term plan. as part of his economic program, reagan encouraged and supported monetary restraint. but in 1981, restraint began to take its toll. high interest rates caused a collapse in the building industry. the high cost of consumer loans put auto dealers out of business and auto workers out of jobs. still, volcker held to his long-term course. consolidating and extending the heartening progress on inflation will require a continuing restraint on monetary growth, and we intend to maintain the necessary degree of restraint. schoumacher: by 1982, the economy had fallen into the deepest recession since the great depression. even the reagan administration was urging the fed to relent. but volcker and the fed board, determined to bring inflation down, held tight. finally, in late 1982, the fed saw inflation drop substantially and eased the money supply. this last week, the federal reserve bank decided to lower its discount rate to 9
this segment of the party for whom no one is conservative enough. there was a -- listen, when ronald reagan was president, the people who represented what they thought was the -- you know, the real republican wing of the republican party, often complained about him, that he wasn't conservative enough to suit them either. sarah palin, despite having bailed out of public office, still has a following in the republican party, and you know, you criticize her, you hear about it. so does karl rove, he has influence with a lot of people who are prepared to put money behind his strategic thinking and the mistake that was made here that got rove into this trouble in my judgment is that when he and his group decided they were going to try to have influence in these primaries they announced that the people who felt that rove represented the failures of the bush years and so on, that was a red flag and you are seeing the reaction to it. >> bill: okay. but having talked to karl rove many, many times on this program, i can tell you that he is a guy who doesn't want a conservative litmus test to limit som
on? i said this is she. [laughter] hello? and it was ronald reagan and he said sandra, how about that? first name basis. [laughter] i said yes mr. president, he said i would like to announce your nomination tomorrow for the supreme court, is that okay with you? [laughter] that is quote-unquote what happened. [laughter] and i said yes, mr. president, i think it is. so that's what happened. he had sent three people from the attorney general's office to check on my record for i had served in some capacity in all three branches of the arizona state government in the preceding years and of course, i have left the track record and i think the president had sent people out to uncover the press coverage of anything i was involved with and to look at papers in connection with a record. i guess they had not uncovered anything to looks scary so he decided to do that. i was at home the day they've wanted to come now to talk to me. my husband and i had built a sun-dried adobe house in the phoenix area 1957. that was a challenge you could buy the other kind but in this country today it is very hard
's not certainly the same thing that he believed. and we brought up the spector of ronald reagan and he had three legs to that republican stool back then, the christian he coalition, you have the defense hawks, but you also have the small government libertarians and ronald reagan didn't preach small government because we can't afford it, but big government into the lives of american people is against the founding document. the republicans lost the argument against big government because suddenly we could afford it and look where we are now. >> megyn: it doesn't seem that rand paul is on different footing when it comes to small government. he's on different footing when it comes to foreign affairs and our military intervention. >> well, both of those positions are rooted in a constitutional argument. you can make nuanced arguments when it comes to the drone strike, you're getting lost if you thought the filibuster for 12 hours was about drones. rather seeing a republican senator stand up against the executive branch and he did something that the brilliant minds of the republican caucus had not bee
a conservative face on, but the truth is coming out now. >> talk from your perspective about the ronald reagan and his belief in god and non- churchgoing that we saw, and bill clinton, who has spoken out about god and churchgoing and family and all that. i mean, how do people deal with this? >> yeah, it's fascinating. i asked former vice-president quayle in an interview i did th him recently. i said, "you know, you, dan, are a churchgoing, bible-carrying presbyterian, and bill clinton is a churchgoing, bible-carrying baptist. so why is it that you differ on social issues?" i dot think he'd ever been asked that question before. he kind of flubbed it. he said, "well, i think it's a difference of interpretation." that's the short answer, and i think that's probably true. do i wish that reagan had gone to church more and exhibited more in his own life and family some of the things that he believed? well, sure, of course. i wish i did. i wish i exhibited in my life more consistently more of the things that i say and believe. but i don't know. it mystified me because-- mmy carter, you know, was anot
to have come to washington to work in a very minor role for ronald reagan and some of us are proud to have supported the bush administration after 9/11 and fighting epimieses and the problem with the obama administration is not that it is too assertive. the problem is that we are retreating all around the world and unfortunately emboldening our enemies. if rand paul wants to run to the left of the obama administration he is tree to ned ahat in the republican minute. maybe this is more is support for that than i think but i doubt there really is. >> chris: nina, the president thinks bringing the troops home not in a rush but steadily and eventually is a winning message in the last campaign, frankly not talking about open-ended commitments. does the gop need to recognize and respond to a war weariness in the country? >> i think the drone issue and war we areness are two totally different issues. rand paul's war and drones is a war on a pretty successful fight against terrorism right now. i'm not sure where that gets us. i agree with bill that the gop doesn't lose by being a strong party of n
in college, it's becoming more difficult to raise children frankly in this culture. ronald reagan was very good as making what was known as reagan democrats fighting for him and i think our party has get an away from that. >> i know you have different views and come from a different place, but he was really the champion at high-level politics, hitting still on issues about sexual morality, on issues like abortion. i see the party as not moving away from those issues, even as some of the intellectual discussion in the party says that that stuff needs to be let behind. do you think that's the party's future or do you think it's only in the past? >> i would say there's two things. the mistake or trap we fall in is we allow ourselves to be singularly defined by those issues. i would argue that things like abortion is an important issue. however, we can't let our party only be about abortion. the second thing is a lot of people are looking at the demographics results and argue we need to be a different party. ultd say no. you're not foing to do that. i think the republican party has to be the s
weapons ban is supported by sylvester stallone and ronald reagan. two guys i never thought to see to harried reid's left. and he felt so bad that he let this ban fail, i know you're terrified of the nra turning on you and giving a low rating. you almost lost your senate seat
, ronald reagan. the hero of the conservatives, reagan never went to israel as president. and this president has acted in ways that you've talked about with the ten meetings of netanyahu, what more adequate speech can he with deal with as a collective pursuit of peace than a speech in cairo, jim? >> i mean, i think it's more than reagan, reverend. i think probably a majority of american presidents since eisenhower did not trek to israel. >> he's the hero so certainly -- >> i agree. >> something to note. >> i agree. and as a young senator during that short period of time that he was representing the state of illinois, obama, you know, went to israel. for sure joy is right on the mark about the bug up their butts that a lot of folks have about the cairo speech. but the context there was one we can forget. it's in which a new administration firmly believed, whether you agree with them or not, that its predecessor, george w. bush, had been fighting essentially a war on islam. that was the view on the arab street and the obama folks went out very directly in cairo in 2009 to r
visited israel, but ronald reagan never thought israel was worth the trip. nor did his successor, president george h.w. bush. then president bill clinton made up for that 12 years of neglect by visiting israel three times. and president george w. bush visited israel once in the last year of his presidency. so not every president visits israel, especially republican presidents, but modern presidential candidates do visit israel. barack obama actually first went to israel in 2006 when he was still an illinois senator. he went again in 2008 when he was running for president. you'll know chris christie is serious about running for president when he schedules a trip to israel. mitt romney went to israel last year in a desperate attempt to exploit a republican lie, that there was some kind of difference between president obama and it's really prime minister benjamin netanyahu about what the borders of israel should be. romney was aided and abetted in that lie by netanyahu, who is an old friend of romney's. they worked together 30 years ago at a boston consulting firm. as we reviewed la
him on past u.s. presidents. >> what does ronald reagan say? [ inaudib
successful in getting elected, governor ronald reagan, governor george w. bush. politics changes and the question is people are going to be looking at republican nominees from the perspective do they have the ability to lead the country. are they a leader? some of them bike bobby jindal or mickey haley or martinez of new mexico or john kas governor snyder, all these people may be able to emphasize their experience but also marco rubio, you mentioned. rand paul is going may be a candidate. i think at some point for the top spot but the second part, senator from new hampshire and governor chris christie, if he gets re-elected is going to be a player if he wants to be a player. >> greta: do you see a bigger role for the people that identify themselves as tea party candidates or do you think that freshly in light of the recent rnc report certain things like suggesting perhaps fewer debates which may be more difficult for less well known candidate. what do you see looking into the future? >> a dozen debates is going to be adequate for anybody to get known. 22 hurt the republican party
the system. so as ronald reagan said at that time when they were basically three soviet leaders in a little over three years time, they keep dying on me. [laughter] and that's what i think president obama and future american presidents are going to be dealing with. certainly here in the next four years. they have no ability to agree yet on the son of one of these brothers, because the 36 branches each year that if my son gets it, your son, your whole branch is disenfranchised because we will pass it down in our branch because it is not, it was easy to pass a from brother to brother, but how do you decide if you going to pass it from cousin to cousin, which cousin, when there are hundreds of them? the king tried to get around that by having an allegiance council with one person from every branch of the family that would decide, but when his first crown prince die, that group apparently met and one of the brothers said, i should be the next crown prince, and the king said no, i'm picking another brother. and that wasn't the end of one man one vote within the royal family. they never had the v
when she went head to head with governor ronald reagan in california when the board of regents fired her from her first position as a professor for her membership in the communist party. she was then very soon after, actually, again the concentration of events in these people's lives in the '70s is remarkable. she was charged with murder and kidnapping and conspiracy in connection with an attempted jailbreak in the marin county courthouse in california. she went underground to evade capture, she was captured and spent 18 months in prison before her trial which was covered the world over. so i'll just read you one more piece from that. this is when she gets captured. reentering the motel in the late afternoon, angela noted dark-suited men milling about the lob by. she tamped down the now-familiar feeling of panic that spread through her. she was probably imagining things, angela told herself. the stress of life as a fugitive had taken its toll. at this point every white man in a suit seemed to her like an fbi agent ready to pounce. resolutely, she made her way across the lobby and int
of each other to vote for ronald reagan because he crafted a beautiful economic message that showed that capitolism was for everybody. we're not doing that. we need an economic message that does those things. the republicans can't -- people will say, well the democrats start out with 230 electoral votes, why don't you become a pro-choice party or pro-gay marriage, and there are people who think about these things strategically. you lose the base. we can't afford to lose the southern base. >> michael: jack, that's like saying in the 50s well you're a preschool integration party, well, we don't want to do that because we'll lose our base. there has to be a point where you go along with the country? >> yes, and no. the 50s -- the electoral map was very different in the 50s. the republicans today are very dependent on a southern base. in the 50s the map was much more torn up. now you have regional parties competing. what you have are two parties that play exclusively in certain regions. the republicans are dependent on a base so it's much harder to do that now than in
of ronald reagan and stop conservatism and just go back to the good old truth that is worked back then, that reagan laid for the incredible ground work of the economy in the 1980's and 1990's. clinton helped to some extent, ut then he created and repealed glass-steagall, and everybody blames it on george bush. the conservatives who didn't do much for the letter peace, we tried to expand under karl rove, the voting process, and giving more to hispanic community, and we didn't get one increase in vote in that eight-year period so. what makes you think that we're going to give amnesty and all the set get a bunch of votes? it's fraud, and it's another really ploy by the democratic party to keep promising and benefits to everybody who will vote for them no matter what. scommoip we're going to talk about immigration in our next segment of the "washington journal" today. but we still have about five minutes left in this segment, if you want to call in to give us your take on this growth and opportunities report that was released today, or if you think hanges in the republican debates would ha
for ronald reagan. he compromised on everything. we had a democratic house with a huge majority. he had to. the real divided government can work. ronald reagan proved it could work. clinton proved it could work. those are guys who got huge legislation enacted. the reagan economic plan, immigration reform, social security reform -- here is the thing -- the president has got to lead. for four years we have had a president was not willing to take that kind of leadership to make congress work. i hope he will this term. >> i would say this is not the season -- compromise is not in the air. but i think that the republicans in the house realize it is in their political interest to turn the heat down and not have a food fight every few weeks for the american public. what i think is in the air and is happening is people from the far left and the far right are starting to come together against institutions and the governing parties, and you will see more of that. you saw it last week with the drones. you will see it with the banks on wall street. businesses that are impacted by the federal governmen
at these three world leaders too. ronald reagan never made sure his time matched -- >> okay. this is just ridiculous. >> there you go. >> stungningly profind. >> let's go to politico, please. with us now -- >> also makes him superior to ronald reagan, right? >> whatever. >> the messiah has returned to israel. look at that. >> are you kidding me? >>> with us now is chief white house correspondent for politico, mike allen, here with the morning playbook. >> this is a good one. >> watch the live pictures while we talk to mike. i think we can walk and chew gum at the same time according to joe. >> i doubt it. >> mike, new report from politico suggest a number of big name democrats are not thrilled with the idea of ashley judd challengi challenging senate minority leader in conduct. some party leaders including former president bill clinton is trying to court another candidate. the kentucky secretary of state. the former president encouraged her to run assuring his and hillary clinton's support should she try to unseat mcconnell. judd under fire for a speech she delivered in 2010 she compared
of democrats and ronald reagan agreed to in the 1980's which is to clean out some of these outlandish special interest tax breaks tax breaks. and i see my good friend, senator levin, here tonight and he is going to outline just some of those outlandish tax breaks. we ought to clean them out and use a portion of those dollars to hold down the rates and keep progressivity. and in the two years after democrats and republicans did that, in the 1980's the country created millions of new jobs. no one can say every one of them was due to that tax reform effort, but it certainly helped. and we had senator enzi on the floor earlier this evening, and i've been working with her on something that i think really has been missed in the tax reform debate and that is senator enzi has said when are people going to start talking about the transition rules that you would need to actually implement the tax reform plan, because today in a global economy, and senator murray and i come from a part of the world that's so trade sensitive, here we've got senator enzi talking about something very practical that ought t
ronald reagan say? >> mr. gorbachev, tear that wall down. >> what does bill clinton say? >> i did not have relations with that woman. >> very good. what does john f. kennedy say? >> ask not what you can do for your country -- ask not what you can do for your country. >> pretty good. >> but -- >> okay. what does george w. bush -- >> but ask what your country can do for you. >> okay. what does george w. bush say? >> [inaudible] >> what does george h. bush say? >> read my lips. no new taxes. >> what does our main man, barack obama, say? >> yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! >> very good. >>brian: ladies and gentlemen, a two-year-old. that's incredible. >>anna: we've got to get this kid on the show. >>steve: he got a little hung up on what john f. kennedy said but he knew exactly what bill clinton said. >>brian: unbelievable. i don't know if he know what bill clinton said. >>steve: he knew the line. >>brian: he even knew how to count. incredible. >>anna: 6:34. to your news headline. senate majority leader harry reid con conceding duet on the democrats -- con seethe de
in american politics. ronald reagan was president. republicans controlled the senate, not the house, but rage gain has been successful in getting things through the house. immersed a whole bunch evidence to say that there had been, i called it media realignment. that the media was getting more conservative or at least less liberal and i wrote a whole piece on the cover of the new republic. it was completely wrong. as it turned out. i had all of this evidence that i thought added up to something and it really did not. >> does it matter though? >> of course it matter? s. >> why? >> look at the 2012 bam campaign. >> you never changed your views and you lived around the liberal media? what does it matter? are they all sheep following the media says? >> oh, who? >> others. >> the reporters. well, there have been some who have come out. i remember charles when he was liberal. i remember mike when he was a pollster for a liberal democratic polling firm. so some people have changed. >> i am talking about the public? >> sure. >> the public, does the public see only liberal coverage and say, yeah, tha
about the relationship between richard nixon and ronald reagan during those years? >> there wasn't much. i mean, nixon didn't have much respect for reagan. he didn't think he was all that bright. i don't think he did much -- i think is putting more involved and other ministry should i had a personal experience with nixon when i lived in "washington post." i was in the outlook section, and this is when the first george bush was president, and we were saying, they're saying maybe he's not quite getting the arrival of yeltsin. i said why do we get richard nixon to write a piece for us. they said he will never utter the "washington post." and by gosh, he wrote of these. it was a pretty good one. i came in and i said we need to work up we called his office the next morning. i can't believe i spoke to. he was up all night working on it, and so we ran it. apparently, i was told it had some influence that brent scowcroft like the peace and gave it to president bush and it was a part of his policy. >> another question over here. >> thank you very much. my name is terry stevenson to either questi
governors and to modernize the message to people who are too young to have ever voted for ronald reagan. they're also going to implement a $10 million minority outreach program. and to that point, you might want to check out this brand new pew poll finding that 62% of american people think the gop is out of touch. when i say brand new, february 13th to 18th. this is something that the party leaders are openly admitting. joining me now is jake tapper anchor for "the league" debuting today. it's nice to see you. i want to ask you right off the bat. i said rnc is looking to nation's 30 republican governors and one of them who is extraordinarily popular, mr. chris christie, wasn't even invited to cpac. i'm sure i understand this. >> the governor of virginia wasn't who is conservative but shown that he's willing to work with democrats in the legislature there and that also has made him not popular among some party faithful. look, the truth of the matter is this is not a done deal what the republican national committee outlined today. people will say that first of all there's the minority out
. and that's not unprecedented. ronald reagan never went two terms, george w. bush took the tail end of his second term. but there has been a difficult relationship with netanyahu. and he goes at a time when the whole region is in turmoil. >> you're right, they're lowering, the white house is lowering expectations, the trip is largely to offset the 2009 trip that president obama took to cairo. where he made a speech to cairo and then did not go to israel, went on to buchenwald, talked about the holocaust, but missed the beginnings of israel. this is a chance to kind of, i don't want to say make it right. but to reach out to israelis in a way he hasn't before. he's not speaking at the knesset. he's speaking to young israelis at a convention center, he's doing things differently at this time. >> and what's the significance of him going to the weitzman statue. this was the leader of zionism. and that's anathema to many people in the arab world, but a way of saying i stand with israel. to israel it's important because it predates the holocaust. by centuries. millennium, it says that israelis ha
more difficult to raise children frankly in this culture. and ronald reagan was good making what was known as reagan democrats feel good he was fighting for them and our party has gotten away from that. >> your candidate in the primaries, don't mean to con flat you and mr. santorum, you have different views, come from a different place, he was really the champion of cultural politics at high level republican politics, hitting still on issues about gay rights, on issues about sexual morality, on issues like abortion. i see the party as not moving away from those issues, even as some of the intellectual discussion says that stuff needs to be left behind. is that the party's future or only the past? >> i would say there's two things. one, the mistake or trap we fall in is we allow ourselves to be singularly defined by those issues. i would argue things like abortion is an important issue. however, we can't let our party only be about abortion. sometimes we fall in the trap of letting that happen. second thing, a lot of people look at demographics and election results and say we have
ronald reagan. i saw them when i went to the saddam museum in baghdad. the neocons came to power with an agenda for regime change in iraq. on 9/11 they were salivating. the general of the joint chiefs at the time told me rumsfeld, wolfowitz, all these guys started iraq, iraq, iraq, at the first meeting after 9/11. the fact is these guys had a mission to try to redraw the maps of the middle east. that's a fact. and dick cheney did not invent the idea of the executive branch being a dictatorship when it comes to foreign policy in america. unfortunately president obama has continued some of the things cheney, rumsfeld and these guys laid the groundwork for earlier. my god, cheney headed up halliburton for the 1990s. he had oil on the mind all the time. the irony is the u.s. isn't winning the oil in iraq. these guys failed at their own game, the neocons. >> mike, as you look forward at iraq's, from iraq's current position into the future, what are your expectations for that nation? >> it's a great question, martin. you know, it's the crucial question, as we think about this day. i wa
in your book, that in the ronald reagan, 1984 debate. tell us what happened. >> well, they had, reagan had a bad first debate and people were saying that he was confused and say that he was too old. and roger was brought in as a kind of a debate counselor for reagan and he told reagan, look, you're the president. you've got -- obviously you don't need to impress people with facts and figures, you need to be yourself. and i found out later, as i worked on this book for fox and his advice to everybody when they go on the air is to be themselves. and reagan took the advice and did very well in the second debate. >> greta: and of course, the famous line out of that second debate about mondale's age, at least, that's roger's line? >> i don't think it's roger's line, but everybody around reagan was afraid to mention to him that people thought he was too old and roger, who is not afraid of much told reagan directly, you have to come up with something that will address the concern about your age. and reagan came up with that, with that line. >> greta: which was that he wasn't going to make age an
percentage of the white vote in 2012 than any candidate since ronald reagan in 1984. the difference is in 1984, if mitt romney had gotten 59% of the white vote, he would have been elected president. he wouldn't have needed an african american, a la teen oh, an asian. he could have won-- that would have been an absolute majority with 86% of the whole electorate. it's down to 72. not only the loss of lateen organization but the loss of asians. the real loz for republicans over the last three elections has been their total decline and collapse of their support among asian voters, high education, higher income, and there's a sense of anti-immigrant. i think david is absolutely right in his diagnosis. i think it's very encouraging. but i think there is some political motivation here that republicans understand if they're going to be competitive in a national election, they have to make amend and make fences, especially after mitt romney ran on self-deportation as an answer to the problem in 2012. >> woodruff: hence, the autopsy the chairman of the republican party announced, rolled out t
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 83 (some duplicates have been removed)